If you would like to register, please email 2 preferred usernames to oceanfisher@gmail.com. You will be registered and sent instructions.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If an employer asked an illegal question and answering them, "That an illegal question to ask me." The employers today should know not to ask about a person's disability. I am not going a have a war of words about this. So, let's move on.

Sometimes my posts come off more aggressive than I mean.

I was only pointing out that you are absolutely correct from a legal and "ideal" standpoint. Applicants shouldn't be asked these type of questions and in an ideal world they should be allowed to dodge them gracefully. But on the ground and in the moment you have to make the best decisions toward furthering your goals, and sometimes toward that purpose you have to put up with inappropriate and even illegal questions and answer them with poise and confidence.

That's pretty amazing that a government agency is allowed to fire people for the content of their feee expression. Seems entirely Unconstitutional for the govt to sanction those people's legal free expression. Outrage culture undermining the Constitution is horrible. It's one thing for a private business to do it, but another entirely for the govt to do it.

edit: racist cops suck, to be sure, but there's a difference between racist speech and directly harmful racist actions. Hopefully the investigation will separate out the wheat from the chaff within reason and the boundaries placed on govt infringement of speech.

I can't access the article, it's coming up all weird on my PC. I'm going on the assumption that these cops were fired and not imprisoned.

If that's the case what is the violation of freedom of speech? The cops have and still have the ability to say whatever they want. Because of their publicly expressed views, the state chose to no longer employ them. The constitution guarantees that no laws will be made to prevent the expression of freedom of speech and I'm assuming none were in this situation. The constitution does not guarantee continued employment by the state regardless of what you say, only that you won't be locked up for it.

Sure, that's what the letter of the law says, but SCOTUS precedent has extended speech protections beyond only crafting laws, to also include abridged or sanctioned speech. Firing someone is a clear sanction, and specifically mentioned in precedent setting SCOTUS opinions on the matter. Precedent holds a 3 part test to see if said speech is Constitutionally protected or not. Not as simple as the words on the paper.

If someone said straight our that is an illegal question. I would find a way to end the interview, there is no way I would hire them no matter how good they may be. At my company you need to be able to lift and move that 25 lb from a back room into the front of my store. I am always concerned about a person lying and then hurting themselves.

Sure, that's what the letter of the law says, but SCOTUS precedent has extended speech protections beyond only crafting laws, to also include abridged or sanctioned speech. Firing someone is a clear sanction, and specifically mentioned in precedent setting SCOTUS opinions on the matter. Precedent holds a 3 part test to see if said speech is Constitutionally protected or not. Not as simple as the words on the paper.

Man, if that really is the case, government jobs are even cushier than I thought!

I don't work for the government and I could get fired for any (or no) reason with no means of recourse. People who disagree with corporate politics where I work are routinely fired for saying something mildly critical or pointing out that we are violating certain educational regulations... and with the exception of one guy where it was super blatant (they fired him for reporting a felony committed by another employee which he was legally mandated to report and told him that was why they were firing him), no one else could do anything if they wanted to. It's perfectly legal for an employee of a private company to be fired for telling his boss he doesn't think X or Y is the right way to do things where I live, much less something as egregious as posting racist content. I think they call that your "Right to Work", lol.

One important caveat is those speech protection precedents only and specifically apply to speech as a private citizen unrelated to the person's official duties. They can still get canned for mouthing off while at work!

Originally Posted by funklab

Man, if that really is the case, government jobs are even cushier than I thought!

I don't work for the government and I could get fired for any (or no) reason with no means of recourse. People who disagree with corporate politics where I work are routinely fired for saying something mildly critical or pointing out that we are violating certain educational regulations... and with the exception of one guy where it was super blatant (they fired him for reporting a felony committed by another employee which he was legally mandated to report and told him that was why they were firing him), no one else could do anything if they wanted to. It's perfectly legal for an employee of a private company to be fired for telling his boss he doesn't think X or Y is the right way to do things where I live, much less something as egregious as posting racist content. I think they call that your "Right to Work", lol.

Absolutely. The notion that making those kinds of (defensive) comments during an interview won't affect the interviewer, and the outcome, is pretty far fetched. Accusing your interviewer of committing a crime during the interview, even when technically correct, is never likely to be a consequence free choice.

Originally Posted by Lavender lady

If someone said straight our that is an illegal question. I would find a way to end the interview, there is no way I would hire them no matter how good they may be. At my company you need to be able to lift and move that 25 lb from a back room into the front of my store. I am always concerned about a person lying and then hurting themselves.

One important caveat is those speech protection precedents only and specifically apply to speech as a private citizen unrelated to the person's official duties. They can still get canned for mouthing off while at work!

That's still a crazy amount of extra protection you get at work compared to the average citizen. Most professional jobs would fire you in an instant if they saw you post something racist or bigoted in any way, even if it was on your own time. Witness what's his name who got fired for being mean to a Chic fil a employee in the drivethru to make a political point.

Hey All- My daughter just graduated college and hasn't had a bite yet as far as jobs go. So many applications are done online and filtered out before they even get to a person to review. We've noticed that some of the questions on the applications would reveal a disability. Example, "Are you able to lift 25 pounds." She is filling this out as "no" when it comes up. She is applying for desk jobs basically in her field of Journalism. (Social Media Management, Copy Editing...)

Do you just put "yes" and if you get an interview let them know you need an accomodation to lift the damn 25 pounds? In short, even though they promote hiring of persons with disabilities the questions on their applications are great for filtering OUT persons with disabilities.

Anyone have experience in getting past this type of barrier? What did you do?

Sadly, they are allowed to ask and use Y/N as a reason not to pursue the applicant. Something will come up for her that will fit her education and talents. She's had internship experience in her chosen field while in college? Is she looking for jobs that she can do remotely from home or does she want to be in an office?

"While certain other laws don't contain a BFOQ defense, the general import of such a defense is often recognized. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not contain a BFOQ defense; nonetheless, according to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "an employer may defend the use of a qualification standard that screens out an individual on the basis of disability by showing that the standard is job related and consistent with business necessity.[11]"

Thanks for all the input! I'm going to hand it all over to her and she can make changes accordingly. If she actually has to lift or perform any other tasks that she can't it can be written into an Individual Work Plan.

It seems that yes, not being totally forthright is the way to go to at least be considered for an interview. Just when she was really getting down on the process a freelance request came her way from a national news organization. Looks to be a year-long contract to supplement their election year coverage.